 |
|
Monday through Thursday at 9am and 8pm; Friday at 9am |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former Vice President Al Gore Talks Choices on Climate Change
|
|
Former Vice President Al Gore. (WBEZ/Andrew Gill) |
He’s an author, professor, businessman, journalist, documentary filmmaker, former U.S. Senator, former Vice President and a winner of the Nobel Prize. Al Gore is currently on tour promoting his new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Plan. Today on Eight Forty-Eight, he takes your questions and comments abour climate change.
Our science reporter Gabriel Spitzer and Northwestern University's Monica Prasad hosted a live blog for today's conversation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Matthew Grimm, Lincoln Square // Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 9:11 AM
Understanding that we cannot ignore our market economy, and that morals alone will not change the way we use adn consume energy, what is the best way to incentivise companies who now have control over most of our energy needs to switch to renewable energy? Is there one solution or is it a combination of ideas and incentives?
|
|
Jeanne Mayer, Chicago // Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 9:40 AM
Thank you Mr. Gore for your continued dedication to this issue. As you know, there are a minority of scientists who do not believe that climate change is caused by human activity. Instead, they speak of solar spots. What is the impact of their theory on the resistance of our political system to develop policy that supports renewable, sustainable energy?
|
|
Robert Bossie, Hyde Park, Chicago // Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 9:40 AM
It is estimated that the US military is the largest polluter in the world. For example, by the end of 2007, according to a report from
Oil Change International, the Iraq War as an example
of all current wars, had put at least 141 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent into the air, as much as adding twenty-five million cars to the roads. The Iraq War by itself added more greenhouse gases
to the atmosphere than 60 percent of the world's
nations. The Earth can no longer afford war.
|
|
Richard, Oak Park // Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 9:42 AM
THis paying subscriber to public radio would REALLY like to know if Mr. Gore sees Cannabis as a useful alternative bio-source. I phoned in and was screened, but not allowed to try and ask this question. I would also like to know Mr. Gore's thoughts on any negative impacts that the so-called "drug war" has on energy issues.
|
|
Sunondo Roy, Mt Prospect // Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 9:52 AM
The US needs to promote practical macro-level renewable energy schemes tied into a new pan-continental energy grid which can effectively transmit energy from areas of production to areas of demand. Micro level solutions have been shown to be ineffective to solve a macro-level problem . Can you address the likihood of implementing the super-grid with a fraction of the total stimulus funds which are being frittered away on existing contruction projects which aren't creating any new jobs, to enable private entities to invest in the energy production facilities. There's no value in building energy production plants if the energy can't be sent to where it's needed.
Thank you.
|
|
Michael Shanahan, Oak Park // Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 10:01 AM
A question for Mr Gore:
Could he address our consumation of poor-quality products (clothing, industrial meat, furniture (even housing) and possible government promotion of lesser quantity/higher quality products in order to reduce our footprint? Urban Planning?(this as opposed to an ever expanding market)
|
|
mark raulston, logan square, chicago // Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 10:32 AM
thanks to al gore and many others for the fantastic, hard work to get people informed, engaged, and active in energy and environmental issues.
how can we get real results in accurate cost accounting that shows all of the subsidies for fossil fuels and also account for real environmental damage? and to add military costs into that picture? until we do that, conventional energy will remain artificially cheap.
once this is done, energy efficiency and renewable energy will become much more cost effective and some of the pressure for 'subsidizing the RE industry' will not be needed. EE and RE will become the best option, on an economic basis as well as social and environmental.
also, in all of this, there seems to be a lack of commitment toward energy efficiency, by far the cheapest and fastest way to save money and energy and have positive environmental impact. solar and wind are very exciting and definitely should be a growing part of our energy generation mix, but more effective, and faster solutions from energy efficiency should be done first.
another huge issue: very few in this country realize that the U.S. spends as much on defense as all other nations in the world combined. *combined*. we could spend far less and still have a very robust defense (with the emphasis on defense) and spend just a portion of this money on clean energy to provide security, jobs, and environmental benefits. the defense industry is apparently seen as a huge federal jobs program, but one that diverts vast sums of money and innovation from positive endeavors such as clean energy and healthcare. we could easily be energy independent and a leader in clean energy and sustainaibility, including the huge economic boon this would bring as we could sell these goods and services (instead of military arms) around the world.
the american public really needs to understand the magnitude and impact of our military spending. we have troops in more than 100 countries around the world and have an annual budget this year of $515 billion. this does not include money spent on iraq and afghanistan which are largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the federal budget.
from wikipedia:
“This [$515 billion defense budget] does not include many military-related items that are outside of the Defense Department budget, such as nuclear weapons research, maintenance, cleanup, and production, which is in the Department of Energy budget, Veterans Affairs, the Treasury Department's payments in pensions to military retirees and widows and their families (an amount not disclosed on official statistics), interest on debt incurred in past wars, or State Department financing of foreign arms sales and militarily-related development assistance. Neither does it include defense spending that is not military in nature, such as the Department of Homeland Security, counter-terrorism spending by the FBI, and intelligence-gathering spending by NASA.
“The recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are largely funded through supplementary spending bills outside the Federal Budget, so they are not included in the military budget figures listed below.[4] In addition, the Pentagon has access to black budget military spending for special programs which is not listed as Federal spending and is not included in published military spending figures.
By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars. Indirect costs such as interest on the additional debt and incremental costs of caring for the more than 33,000 wounded borne by the Veterans Administration are additional. Some experts estimate these indirect costs will eventually exceed the direct costs.[5]“
mark raulston
1LT, USAR
logan square
chicago
|
|
Grant Schreiber, Uptown // Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 11:20 AM
I'm wondering how much more footdragging from the US can the planet take? We should have been looking to get off foreign oil in the 1970's, but apparently we're willing to scuttle the planet so Exxon Mobile can have a really good quarter. In the balance of the world, profits are more important than the future, and how the heck do you fight against that?
|
|
John Berton, Lincoln Square // Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 11:42 AM
Nuclear Power.
Every other form of energy production, other than nuclear, is just
harnessing some energy source and channeling it into some technology
that re-forms it into a form usable to humans. Ultimately, it's just
energy that would have been in the environment...at some point...
Fossil fuels are just a collection of ancient solar inputs, burned all
at once, granted, but originally from the sun and, so, meant for the
earthly environment. Geothermal is just taking heat from the earth
and putting it somewhere else or using it to make electrical power if
there's enough of it...
Nuclear power puts energy (ultimately, heat) into the environment.
That energy (heat) would never get into the environment without human
technology - splitting atoms is not a naturally occurring event. So
some amounts of nuclear power put some amounts of heat into the
environment. Larger amounts of nuclear power put larger amounts of
heat into the environment.
What are the effects of massive amounts of nuclear power putting
massive amounts of heat (not meant by any 'natural means' to be in the
environment) into the environment?
|
|
mark raulston, logan square, chicago // Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 12:06 PM
good comments. and john is right: all of the energy we used is ultimately solar power: from sunlight stored as chemical energy in fossil fuels (which supply over 90% of our overall consumption), to wind to hydro.
a couple of other items regarding population/food production and biofuels:
population and farming: I love the idea of family farming, and small scale, organic, urban agriculture, but with a population of over 250 million in growing, in this country alone (and projected 9 billion worldwide by 2010), there is no way to provide for such a massive population without widespread increases in farmland (and the problems of large scale industrial, monoculture agriculture) at the expense of natural ecosystems. how do we address population growth and acknowledge its huge impact not only on the environment, but on broader social and humanitarian issues such as resource shortages and resulting conflict and war?
transportation, ethanol and other biofuel subsidies: if there are going to be subsidies for alternative fuels, they should go to more effective and efficient fuels than ethanol. but we must look at the big picture first.
once again, efficiency is vital. think of the illustration of the inefficiency of automotive transportation. a 150 lb. man rides in a 3,500 lb. vehicle (a Toyota camry is approx. 3,300 lbs., while the Toyota highlander is approx. 5,800 lbs.). when a unit of gas is burned, 70% is lost to heat, another portion is lost to drivetrain and other losses. let’s say 20% of the fuel energy is converted to moving the 5,000 lb. vehicle to transport the 150 lb. man. the overall efficiency? around 4%. in an SUV, it is closer to 2%.
switching to alternative fuels to support this, particularly ethanol, is not a solution. converting all of our current farmland to ethanol production would provide a small fraction of our transoportation needs, let alone our total energy needs. in 2008, biofuels provided 1.4% of U.S. total energy consumption (per the DOE’s annual energy review (biofuels are 20% of renewable consumption, and renewables are 7% of the total primary energy consumption).
moreover, ethanol barely has a positive energy balance and does far more damage than good (greatly expands large scale agriculture with all the problems of ecosystem displacement, fertilizer use, etc.), and diverts huge money in the form of farm subsidies to huge agribusiness (not small farmers).
|
|
James T. Struck, Rogers Park Evanston IL // Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 2:30 PM
This letter was written as soon as I heard Albert Gore won the Nobel Prize in 2007.Al Gore/UN Climate Change Committee deserve
recognition for their work on climate change. Still,
he has overemphasized CO2 as the source of climate
change over against solar and other factors like other
chemicals in the atmosphere or amount of trees. Also,
while the UN and Gore get the award, people impacted
by climate change, like those evicted and handcuffed
for having their pipes break or for complaining about
temperature problems in their living space, do not get
recognition.Victims in New Orleans, Bangladesh, India,
Japan, California, Florida and the Philippines do not
get as much recognition.
People who have their pipes break, cold water or air
conditioner problems should not be isolated
from their families, because a member of their family
is upset about it. Some Cook County Guardian and sheriff staff have done
this isolation to me. Climate issues and other issues
are retaliated against with isolation from family at
least by some Cook County Guardian and sheriff staff.
Statements such as "The Maunder Minimum period shows
that periods of low sunspot activity can be associated
with lower earth temperatures" show that the sun is a
factor in climate. Scientists who emphasize that
astronomical factors, like Earth Sun distance, solar
activity, position in space, and CO2 interaction with
plants and oceans can assist in understanding earth's
climate are not denying human caused climate change.
Please recall that Mars has over 95% of its atmosphere
as CO2 and that it is cooler. CO2 concentration by
itself is not the only factor in climate.Human
production of greenhouse gases is associated with
warming, but everyone discussing other factors in
climate is not "denying" human caused climate change.
Venus' distance to the sun is a more significant
factor in its temperature than the CO2 quantity.
Gore and the UN Climate Commission do good and
wonderful work, but the sun, trees, algae, biomass,
atmospheric issues, climate cycles, dust, the victims
of climate change, other chemicals need to be
emphasized rather than just CO2. I chose the confirmation name Thomas after Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas wore a Sun on his outfit in some images. He was a priest and scholar in about the year 1100. I chose him too because he was supposedly able to fly besides being a scholar. I would bet that image is one of the reasons I like research on the Sun and its effect on weather.
James T. Struck BA,BS,AA, CNA, MLIS A French American Museum of Chicago Aquinas spent time teaching at the Sorbonne
|
|
Vamsi M, Gurnee IL // Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 3:49 PM
Thanks to Al Gore for working tirelessly to raise awareness about Global Warming.
In the past few years all the manufacturing jobs have been sent to China and other countries. Now that we are facing unemployment and continuing job losses bringing back the GREEN manufacturing jobs to begin with is the only big solution to issues at home. Don't you think this is going to effect our future relationship with countries like China and resulting in those countries not willing to co-operate in taking steps to minimize effects on the envirionment.
|
|
Geena, South Loop // Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 4:21 PM
Rev. Gore, How long do yo thnk your fim flam act will last? Aren't you cosy with Occindental Oil and your family big in the slaughterhouse industry.
Sir you are an A typical american fraud.
Coworkers,watch WBEZ censor
this.
|
|
Raj, Crystal Lake // Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 8:55 PM
energy companies are drilling for oil in deep seas and mining in deep mines which are hugely expensive and dangerous. its common sense to spend that money on safe renewable energy.. why arent energy companies understanding this simple fact
|
|
Raj, Crystal Lake // Tuesday, November 24, 2009 @ 9:09 PM
it is frustrating and shocking to see some people including the conservative media questioning the validity of global warming. they should stop the blame game that al gore is having a conflict of intrest with renewable venture capitalists.
|
|
|
|
|